The Father of "Talk Show Democracy" On the Line with Larry King N THE AFTERMATH of what surely was the most extraordinary presidential campaign ever for the American news I media, the Larry King story-like the man himself-has taken on almost mythic proportions: Horatio Alger Makes Good. Real good. Today, the mantle of media greatness rests easy on the self­ described "Jewish kid from Brooklyn" in the wake of events that defined the "top banana of talk show hosts" as the undisputed king­ maker of the 1990S. Consider: During the presidential race, Ross Perot announced his candidacy (twice) on "Larry King Live"; after belittling the idea, an uncomfortable (and, finally, desperate) George Bush came on the show late in a losing campaign; and Bill Clinton, mindful of King's role in his victory, promised to be back every six months ifhe won. Though self-effacing ("I'm just the interlocutor"), Larry King doesn't reject the label of Father of America's new "electronic democ­ racy," a revolution that came of age, he acknowledges, with Perot's coy, on-air concession on Feb. 20, 1992, that he'd run for president if drafted. With that show, Larry King became an instant oracle, rank­ ing second (after venerable sense-maker David Brinkley), Media Studies Center research found, among most frequently cited political pundits, while catching both grief from the traditional news media and loyalty of audiences and candidates. "1 don't get carried away with it," King told Journal Editor Edward Pease in an interview in King's CNN office in March. "1 123 The Father of "Talk Show Democracy" mean, it's wonderful to be a part of it-I'd be kidding you if I said I don't love the attention and the pay and the wonderful things it brings you. And it's wonderful to be in the middle of the hunt.... But you got to watch that it doesn't go to your head." In 1994, with the role of interactive shows like King's well estab­ lished, Larry King reflects that what now is revered as "talk show democracy" is just an idea whose time took a while to come-34 years, to be precise, which was how long ago King developed the for­ mat he still uses. His 1960 radio show, broadcast live from Pumpernik's Restaurant in Miami Beach, consisted of conversation with both stars and "regular people." That basic format became the "Larry King Live" show that 400 million people listen to or watch daily in 1994. "I'm not doing anything different than I did 30-something years ago," King says. "Nothing. Before the Gore-Perot debate-someone said, 'Boy, you must be edgy.' Why? I did two guys running for Miami Beach mayor. I have had two guys punch each other. It's nothing new-there are just different characters. I've always been inquiring. I'm doing the same thing I've always done except that now 124 On the Line with Larry King the avenues are so much wider, direct communication is so much more powerful than it was when I was in Miami Beach." In a 1989 interview with Media Studies Journal King said of talk radio: "Probably we're a better barometer [of public opinion] in that the New York Times will print only the letters that it chooses to print." Shows like his, King said, were "a national, electronic town meeting, a chance for the public to get together and speak out." Talk shows in general and Larry King's in particular have not been without their critics in the 1990S; it isn't difficult to make connections between public resentment of the traditional news media and the grow­ ing popularity of "alternatives." In his 1993 book On the Line, respond­ ing to the sometimes whining criticism from the press that shows like his make it easy for public figures to circumvent the press and avoid the tough questions, King concedes that, "'Talk show democracy' is certain­ ly not without risks or flaws. Our callers ask better, more serious ques­ tions than some in the press have given them credit for. But some candidates and their handlers still think of talk shows as a way to avoid tough press grillings. Talk shows should supplement the campaign press, not replace it. There's room enough for everyone." It is King's view that direct-access exchange between citizens and public figures-even presidents-is good for society and press alike. That vision of the American people speaking to one another over the air has become the electronic and political reality of the 1990S. And political leaders are joining in, as the Father of the Talk Show Democracy discussed in this interview evaluating the presidency in the new media age and his own part in it. M E D I A STU DIE S J 0 URN A L : You have had a major influence in developing the promise of the "electronic town meeting. " Would you talk about how you see this new form having affected the ways that Bill Clin­ ton governs? LA R R Y KIN G: Bill Clinton's great strength is his ability to commu­ nicate via television, one on one. Reagan had that strength, but his was perceived completely differently: Reagan was your really nice uncle who was a good guy and made you feel good. Clinton is your really bright cousin who listens to you, cares about the family, relates 125 The Father of ((Talk Show Democracy" very well, calls, keeps in touch, is accessible. He's a nice guy. Got faults ... we all have faults-for example, even the Whitewater thing. But he's extraordinarily likable. Even what we see as a little bit of a cad in him is kind of fun. So, he will use to his advantage programs like "Larry King Live" and others. The more he communicates in an informal setting, the better. I have no doubt that if this were the 1930S, Roosevelt would have been on our show a lot-fireside chats with Larry King. He would have taken it further and talked to the public. Clinton's willing to talk to the public. He is the most accessible president ever. M S J: Do you think the president gets away with more on shows like yours because he's so good on the air and can appear and sell his position pretty much without being challenged? LA R R Y KIN G: You have to be good at that. But that same plus that allows him to go on and focus on himself also allows Whitewater to be the focus of the show this week. You got to pay the price of it. M S J: How is this immediate access of the public with news and news­ makers changing how the traditional news media deal with the presi­ dent? LA R R Y KIN G: There's no "traditional" anymore. In fact, in a cou­ ple of years, we're going to be called traditional, and something new will have come along. Communications is so informal today and so one-to-one: When I was a kid, the last thing I'd have dreamed of would have been talk­ ing to a president. I mean, forget it. But that's a distinct possibility today, that a Joe Citizen in Des Moines can talk to Bill Clinton. In fact, if his kid wanted to really work at it, he could make it happen, because Bill Clinton will be on phone-in shows and will continue to communicate that way. We'll continue to have these kinds of forums. Now, Whitewater aside, it wouldn't shock me to see Hillary debate Robert Dole on the eve of the health care vote on " Larry King Live." Gore and Perot proved that the new rules are that there are no rules anymore. 126 On the Line with Larry King M SJ: Where does that leave the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, NBC? LA R R Y KIN G : Someone said-and I don't know if this is true-that today we have more input of information in a week than someone in 1930 had in a lifetime. The more the merrier. We've never been better informed. The more channels open to us-the more C­ SPANs, the more CNNs-the better. There will still be a Washington Post. There will be op-ed pages. There will be critics. But today, the newspaper has a different role. M S J: What's that? LA R R Y KIN G : The difference today is that Clinton could make three key TV appearances. Let's say he appears on " Larry King Live," "Nightline" and the morning shows. Then there's William Safire, two days later, on the op-ed page of the New York Times, telling you that he looked erratic. It's meaningless to you, if he didn't look erratic to you. When I was a kid, all I had to go on was print: Time magazine told me what to think of Harry Truman-print was like the Bible to me. But now, all this competition forces the printed press to be better and smarter-the Los Angeles Times is 100 percent better than it was; the New York Times, infinitely more readable, a better paper, affected by television-the New York Times is doing graphics! The Washington Post is a better paper. So is the Chicago Tribune. M S J: SO the "new media" are pushing newspapers to do a better and dif ferentjob? LA R R Y KIN G: Sure.